Commentary:Freedom of religion isn't freedom to discriminate

By the Rev. Kelly S. Allen and Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl

Updated 11:01 am, Thursday, April 9, 2015

Some would have us believe that religious freedom is under assault in Texas and that government must do something about it. We question whether this is true. But even if it is, the proposed solution would undermine freedom rather than protect it.

As clergy of two different religious traditions, we are offended every day.

We encounter people who think our beliefs and rituals are trite or irrelevant. We see advertisers celebrating greed and movies flaunting promiscuous sex and violence. Such is the nature of living as religious people in a pluralistic culture.

Our practices are different. Our theologies are not the same. But as sacred as our respective convictions are to us, we must never foist them on people who do not accept or embrace them.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the best protection of religion the world has ever seen. Because of its focus on the "free exercise of religion," it keeps government from championing a single kind of religious belief or practice. As a result, the United States is one of the most diverse and religiously vibrant nations on Earth. Our founders realized that to call on government to defend or establish one particular religious tradition necessarily means inhibiting the religious practice of another.

The state of Texas already has in place the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a robust law barring measures that "substantially burden" the free exercise of religion. Individuals and institutions who find themselves hampered in carrying out their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion have a champion in this law. It was passed in 1999 with broad-based support from diverse religious and non-religious bodies all across the state.

This law needs to stay in place in order for all of us who take our religion seriously to have true freedom. No other law is necessary.

Unfortunately, bills introduced by state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, and state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, would turn the idea of "freedom of religion" on its head. Rather than protecting freedom, these proposed bills would allow individuals and businesses to use religion to harm others and return us to the shameful days of legal discrimination.

The proposals by Campbell and Krause are sparsely worded constitutional amendments that could allow anyone who feels religiously "burdened" by almost any state or local law or regulation to be released from obeying it. This is simply a way to give people the right, based on a religious argument, to refuse to serve or employ any person or group that does not meet their standard of doctrinal acceptability.

This is religious coercion, not liberty.

These proposed constitutional amendments are deceptive. Their intent is to pave the way for repealing nondiscrimination ordinances that have been adopted in cities all across Texas, including Houston and San Antonio. Although some religious communities continue to teach that same-gender relationships are unacceptable in the eyes of God, this belief cannot be used to justify marginalizing or shaming people publicly in a pluralistic culture.

How is it a religious violation for a business owner whose faith teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong to treat couples seeking to conduct business with him or her with dignity and equality?

Is moral judgment the same as "the free exercise of religion"? We don't think it is.

Should a Jewish owner of a men's clothing store refuse service to a man who wears a crucifix?

Should a Muslim restaurant owner be able to turn away a Christian customer who admits to a belief that Jesus is God incarnate?

Should a Christian business manager be able to eliminate a young mother from the pool of job candidates because she had a child outside of the bonds of a religious marriage?

There are religious entities in the United States, such as the Amish and some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, who are so committed to interacting primarily with those who share their system of belief and practice, that they create communities "set apart." They are free to do this. But these communities make it clear that it is not appropriate for them to impose these expectations on the broader culture.

As people of faith, our calling is to teach and to adhere to the precepts of our religious traditions. This is not the role of government.

Government cannot legally permit us to put obstacles in the way of others who are seeking employment, trying to transact business, or purchase or rent a home, in the name of that religion.

There is a vast difference between the "free exercise of religion" and the freedom to discriminate. Let us not make the mistake of equating the two.

Allen is pastor at University Presbyterian Church and Stahl is Rabbi Emeritus at Temple Beth-El, both in San Antonio. This commentary first appeared in the San Antonio Express-News.